The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Saturday, 7 August 2010

This is an excellent essay by an Australian reader lamenting the gulf between Australia's sunny public image and the crabbed, matriarchal reality. It echoes an interesting book I read by the Australian journalist John Pilger, I think entitled A Secret Country. This discussed the astronomical suicide rates for teenage boys in Australia long before the issue touched the pan-Anglosphere men's movement. That was my first intimation that Anglo-Saxon countries stigmatize males as a sex. It is certainly notable that prominent and influential feminists like Germaine Greer hail from Australia, that the country is presently led by a woman and that Australian feminism is especially well-integrated with the state.

Some countries of the Anglosphere are more Anglo than other countries of the Anglosphere. In fact, Australians are more Anglo than the English. Contrast this with Americans, where Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, Spanish and so on had comprised major components in waves of immigration. Whereas in Australia, the White Australia Policy was rendered defunct only in 1973.

To avert any ambiguity, let’s be clear… the “white” in the White Australia Policy related principally to Anglo whites, with “ten quid” cockney immigrants encouraged to settle here. Italians, Germans and other dubious nationals with funny accents were never a part of the “ten quid tourist” program.

It’s been proven to be fiction, but Americans like to entertain the notion that English was voted over German as the national language by only a slim margin. That they sometimes entertain this legend with such fondness suggests that the Anglo influence is not quite as entrenched as some suggest.

Consider Australian politics and laws, and that the Australian mode of regulation has been embraced by bureaucrats the world over. Perhaps they assumed that if draconian laws can work on a people as relaxed and fun-loving as Aussies, then they can be implemented with even greater ease in countries that appear less “democratic”.

Incidentally – the notion of the “easy-going Aussie” is a myth. “Easy-going” is a cultural red herring designed to keep interpersonal relationships at a fun, superficial level, to avoid all that nastiness that more spontaneous, less regulated people the world over are inclined to erupt into at short notice. The lie of the “easy-going Aussie” is great for politics, it makes regulation so much easier. For example, consider the following:

Which brings us to Rookh’s thesis regarding Anglo feminism. The good-girl/bad-girl duality is nowhere as strong as it is in Australia. The slut is a dominant women’s stereotype, with its dominant male counterpart, the “larrikin” (the English would be familiar with chads, cads and lads). Obviously it is incorrect to say that “good” girls don’t exist in Australia. They do. But they, like their male counterparts, are 2-dimensional personalities that equate morality with “niceness” and “proper behaviour”, not with courage or standing up for what you believe in. Traditionally, I believe that American culture, at least in the past, accommodated more of the latter. Unquestioning and compliant “proper behaviour”, by contrast, is Anglo to the core, and derives much of its momentum from a secular, materialistic, anti-religious perspective (quite in contrast to Puritanism). I believe that Anglicanism may reflect this more pragmatic, sterile approach to religion (but don’t quote me on this).

We have to worry about Australia’s creeping, insidious impact on world politics. Promotion-seeking bureaucrats the world over are inclined to sneak in regulatory practices that work in foreign countries, so that they can claim credit. And in this regard, Australia’s anti-democratic Anglo foundations, coupled with the attractive lie that we are a hedonistic, fun-loving people, is setting some draconian precedents. That’s my thesis, anyway. Puritanism is too opinionated for Anglo sensibilities, really. It is no accident that Australia (and its “seventh state”, New Zealand) has set major feminist precedents.

35 comments:

Excellent post, Rookh. As a citizen of Australia, this article really encapsulates my home country.

In addition, Rookh. Australia also has extremely draconinan gun laws as well (introduced by former Prime Minister John Howard in less than 10 days after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 and the Monash University shootings in 2002). These gun laws as well as the other restrictions on the rights and liberties of individuals mentioned in the post only proves to me that Australia is still a prison in 2010.

P.S. Rookh. I forgot to mention in my last post that Australia is the only country in the Anglosphere that has compulsory voting (i.e. being forced under law to turn up to the polling booths and casting a vote).

I for one support the restoration of voluntary voting in my home country and I view those who support the continuation of compulsory voting to be idiots of the highest degree.

I live in the United States, and Australia and New Zealand are held up by the media as ideal societies. That is saying a lot, given the American media's utter contempt for every other culture; it must be Australia's stronger puritanical strain and their government's ruthlessness in enforcing it. The US is pretty much headed in the same direction.

Astute observations Rookh, regarding the astronomical suicide rates. Australia's suicide rates appear to have normalized with those of other countries now. But I'm actually wondering if this is a con-job. Reputation and social approval are extremely important to Australians, and these days, I fully expect the statistics to be tampered with. The media here obsesses over "reputation" even in football and cricket. And if you don't play sport, you cannot qualify as a role model. But if you play smash-face, be mindful of your reputation and what everyone thinks of you. Smash-face for girly-men.

BTW, Rookh, Australians are as misogynistic as they are misandrist. Gender hatred is just a way of life here. But it is not always in the open. More often, it's an undercurrent you sense.

Australia represents the most bizarre interplay of conflicting concepts. Think "denial" to make sense of it. "Easy-going" and "relaxed", yet obsessed with reputation and social approval. "Fun-loving" and rambunctious, yet painfully awkward with honesty or confrontation. "Well-behaved" and "normal", yet you only need to visit Earl's Court in London or the Hofbräuhaus in Munich to sample some of the most uncouth elements that you could ever hope to have vomit over you. Australians can come across as sweet and endearing, but they can be silently toxic if you step out of line and beyond earshot. They can be as loud and brash as they can be tormentedly self-conscious.

Australians are anti-intellectual to the point of obsession. What better example can I provide, than Prime Minister John Howard's comment, "I believe in being average and ordinary":http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1582732.htm

Another important dimension of Australian culture is mob-think. It is like they're haunted by an ever-present, watchful ghost ever judging their actions. Mob-think is an extreme form of group-think where Aussies feel a strong sense of obligation to an archetype that defines their purpose and belonging. If you don't share that obligation and the social competencies that prove it, then you will not be regarded as "normal". This directly contradicts the myth that Australians are individualistic, free-spirited and outspoken. "Easy-going" is a command, not a liberty.

I could go on, but really, my main concern is that the world (or at least the Anglosphere) seems to be buying into this warped combo of delusion, hedonism and regulation. As RJase points out, getting fined for not voting? Getting slugged hundreds of dollars for not wearing a seatbelt? Risking jail time for "associating with" bikers? All this would be funny except that the rest of you seem to want to copy us. Gun laws? Hate crime legislation? "Those fun-loving Aussies are doing it now, maybe we should too." Welcome to the new world order.

Interesting observation Anonymous, about Australia and NZ being held up by the US media as ideal societies. America has a principles-based constitution attributable to the founding fathers. By contrast, Australia has a more events-driven, authoritarian “constitution” implemented within the context of a penal colony. I suspect that white Australia appeals to Americans’ sense of nostalgia for something lost. But Australia is nothing like America. Not even close. It is an English outpost that still bears the union jack in one corner.

Chuckew: Part of it, too, is that an Australian corporation has a virtually monopoly on the US media; but there are more Americans than you might think who'd be perfectly happy going back to what we had before the American Revolution. They represent the Far Right and they are just as misandrist as their Left-wing counterparts. The idea of a puritanical, (both religiously and socially), corporate-run aristocracy is what motivates them. There have actually been state-level legislators here who've advocated raising the age of consent to 25; expanding 'statuatory rape' laws to include age differences; and banning marriage to foreign nationals. These weren't liberals, they were self-styled conservatives. You can see why the neo-Fascism of Australia/NZ would be an 'ideal' they'd aspire to.

Anonymous is correct, but there are cultural subtleties to consider in the distinctions drawn. Every culture has its right and left, defined from different historical perspectives. Australian neo-fascism of the Anglo variety taps into the US Far Right, resonates with it, and draws it out of its shell. In this way, the US Right is incorporating characteristics that it never had before. In effect, the Australian Right is showing the US Right how to get away with it. There is a shift in emphasis away from competition and reward for effort, towards privilege, reputation, don’t question authority. Mateship and social allegiances increasingly take precedence over performance and quality. The superficialities of marketing and spin rule. The way that Australia is being marketed, with said Australian media monopoly behind it, conceals the ugly truths of an obedient, unquestioning culture more dumbed down than anything that has ever gone before. The countries of the Anglosphere are becoming more Anglicized, but through Australia’s influence, not England’s. In effect, our New World Order is beginning to resemble a penal colony.

Great thoughts, guys. It occurs to me that the Anglosphere nations' linguistic and cultural similarities facilitate the ready transfer of oppressive concepts from one area to another, depending on their efficacy in one region. It is like a battle such as Antietam or Alesia where the commander 'fire-fights' by shifting forces around to plug gaps in his defences, except that the forces in the modern setting are misandrist, repressive concepts. The misandrist elites in Canada, Britain or American see 'liberal fascism' working in Australia and quickly apply it in their home countries. This even applies to media products like live talent shows, currently being exported from Britain to neutralise the masses in America and elsewhere.

Has anyone noticed how - while the media and education are increasingly 'liberal' - there has been a corresponding 'tightening' of freedoms and choices across the Anglosphere? So we have feminists in US colleges and schools preaching 'freedom' while, as anonymous says, men in the States are increasingly viewed as 'Untermenschen'. This conforms strongly to the Anglobitch Thesis, which argues that 'liberal' anglo feminists are essentially at one with fascist ultra-conservatives in the Anglosphere. This explains the paradox of women like Anne Coulter, advantaged power-feminists who simultaneously preach 'conservatism'. As I have long argued, Anglo-Saxon 'conservatism' does not serve men, only women. The way the new Anglo 'liberal-fascism' pans out is this: men bear the brunt of 'conservatism' (selective draft registration, imprisonment, draconian divorce settlements) while women reap the rewards of 'liberalism' (educational advantages, welfare benefits, engineered representation). This is how the two contraries exist in the same cultural space: in practice, there is no paradox.

Rookh and Chuckew; That pretty much sums up the situation in the US today. I was reading an earlier blog on this site yesterday where feminism was tied to insanity and the fact that the insane are directing our cultural mores over here is really starting to show. I don't know the situation in the rest of the Anglosphere, but an often-suppressed fact is that the US leads the world in consumption of prescription psychiatric drugs and American women far outnumber men in their use. Thinking back to when I still dated Anglobitches, I honestly can't remember a single one who wasn't under some kind of psychiatric medication (or had been previously). So over here the mental derangement is a lot more apparent.

Anon2: 'Plague' is good way to describe them. I've been dating foreign women for the last 5 years, and still wondered how I managed to put up with American women as long as I did. At least I got away from them, unlike a lot of other guys, before being dragged through divorce courts, bankruptcy, psychotherapy, child-support, suicide, &c. For some time now, I have been working on a theory about Anglobitches and mental illness. American women are simultaneously conditioned to depend on men AND feel superior to them at the same time. This accounts for the paradoxical phenomenon especailly characteristic of American women: their pathological compulsion to destroy strong, intelligent, and worthy men; and their equally pathological compulsion to attempt serious relationships with the most dysfunctional males imaginable. It's obviously impossible to expect stability from this kind of schizophrenic mindset; and extremely dangerous to attempt intimate relationships with it. American women are completely unpredictable and our laws over here are so hopelessly misandryist that any relationship with them is an accident waiting to happen.

*There is a shift in emphasis away from competition and reward for effort, towards privilege, reputation, don’t question authority. Mateship and social allegiances increasingly take precedence over performance and quality. The superficialities of marketing and spin rule.*

Marketing and spin being FEMININE characteristics, not masculine ones. In sum, the Anglosphere is becoming more feminized at every level, with social skills being exalted in every field of human endeavour. This coheres with the shift away from true democracy to the rule of self-serving oligarchies defined by kinship and social ties.

In truth, modern human populations are as much subject to evolutionary change as humans were in the hunter-gatherer phase. Scientists like Britain's Chris Stringer aver that genetic change can quickly transform human populations where social circumstances favour given characteristics. Indeed, we can see a socially engineered genetic shift away from masculine values like integrity, honour and personal reputation towards conformity, superficiality and emotionalism.

Feminism is the motor of this change, since unregulated female mate choice tends to discourage masculine virtues in human populations. In short, the social shift towards matriarchy is having genetic effects on western populations also. It only takes three generations for a population to be substantially altered in its genetic make-up and this process began in the late Sixties, gathering greater pace in the mid-eighties.

My point being, resistance to matriarchal Anglo-feminim gets ever weaker because pan-Anglosphere populations increasingly lack the genetic resources to do so. Males are no longer mate-selected for traditional masculine values like industry or personal reputation. The rise of the Anglo underclass and pro-feminist men directly relates to this genetic shift.

Taking up from the evolutionary angle, I think there are at least two distinct types of genetic evolution going on simultaneously.

In free 'chaotic' nature, there would be simple environmental Darwinian evolution; whereas in a husbanded society, there is also 'breeding' selection; think of the difference between a wolf and a domestic dog for the illustration and corollary.

Since Marxist-Feminist culture, essentially splits society into the 'party chosen' and the 'underclass', I believe it is possible that two distinct evolutionary systems are evolving to re-establish natural equilibrium.

M-F culture self selects according to socio-political constraint (and is singularly struggling to procreate), whilst the 'chav' culture spawns with chaotic abandon, with all the healthy physical benefits of young procreators selecting according to natural urges, rather than fucking a pipette filled with gay sperm.

So think along the lines of H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine", with the Eloi and the Morlocks. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who is which.

Rookh; I'm not certain that genetics plays any role in this; but psychodynamics do. Feminism, like Communism and Fascism, is an attempt to supplant the rational laws of civilization and human progress with irrationalist phantasmas. I don't think feminism ultimately can survive. Either western men will overthrow it or our culture will collapse and be taken over by a more masculine foreign culture. Rather than competing forms of evolution as JimmyGiro said, what we are really seeing is psychoneurotic regression on a mass scale. Matriarchy is always a social reversion; when a culture breaks down, the population turns to mother-figures just like children run to their mothers for protection. We see this reversion today in such phenomenon revivals of pagan goddess-cults; celebration of androgeny and pansexualism; fixation on the 'earth mother' in environmental movements; female political celebrities like Sarah Palin. Fascism and Communism offered the maternal security blanket of the state. Civilization has always seen its greatest advances under what feminsits depreciate as 'Patriarchy'. Masculine societies have always led civilization; feminisization is a bellweather of its decline.

I agree, Rookh, that marketing and spin are feminine characteristics. We can extend this further to business in general, with all the networking and schmoozing required to be successful. Networking is classic "woman's work".

I don't agree that any of this has to do with genetics. Genetics is a whole other ball-game and I suspect that we're in for some major reinventions on that front.

I do agree with the drift of your argument, though, that "Males are no longer mate-selected for traditional masculine values like industry or personal reputation." And you recognize "The rise of the Anglo underclass and pro-feminist men." I would attribute this to social forces (what Anonymouse III identifies as psychodynamics), along the lines of what Karl Marx declared was inevitable – the rise of the proletariat and the fall of capitalism. Also consistent with what Anonymous III suggests wrt psychodynamics and matriarchy as a social reversion.

Is such the fate of all capitalisms? Interesting question. How does one implement courage, honour, integrity and individualism within the dumbed-down, toadying, degenerating systems that we have today?

I don't think that genetics works in isolation, I believe that recursive feedbacks between genetic, psycho-dynamic and cultural factors work together to amplify and cement the effects of all three. For example, female mate-choice is less fettered in misandrist anglo cultures (cultural factor) leading to an increase in the number of shiftless sociopaths (genetic factor) leading to collective pathology in pan-Anglosphere institutions like schools, government and the media (psycho-dynamic factor). In turn, culture and genes amplify these tendencies in the next generation until the Anglosphere locks into cyclic decline. I have written about emergent order and self-organization elsewhere:

Good one Rookh. I rarely encounter anyone providing a practical interpretation of complexity theory, as you've done. We are on the same page. Memetics is now regarded as somewhat reductionist though. While I have also been working with social systems theory (eg., Niklaus Luhman) and cybernetics (eg., Gregory Bateson), the genetics aspect is a stumbling block that doesn't really fit. But there's some exciting developments in the wind.

Rookh; On the other hand, Feminism is an ideology that promotes androgeny; so-called 'gender neutrality'; and alleged abortion 'rights'. These are all by definition anti-evolutionary. In keeping with their irrationalist ideology, it's perfectly logical that western women would select (in contrast to rationality) the weakest, least suitable men for mates. Which is probably where the genetic angle would fit in, but only tangetally. Misandryist home/educational/media would give the impression of an inherited inferiority; the reality is that these dysfunctional males are only copying the dysfunctional males that their Anglobitch mothers hold up to them as role models. The character is very difficult to change after early childhood especially if society 'normalizes' the insanity. Which raises the interesting question of cyclic decline. The lone marriage dynamic that is actually increasing in the US is between American men and foreign women---a trend that has been doubling every decade since 1990. Are we seeing the collapse of Anglo-Feminism and the rise of a stronger, more masculine culture; or will the fanatics win out by resorting to force?

The original post is very interesting, in that Rupert Murdoch's pan-Anglosphere media empire is implicitly misandrist. If Australia is the core nexus of modern feminist misandry in a cultural sense, his media outlets are the perfect element for its transmission.

Rookh: That is most definately true about Murdoch's misandry. Over here in the US, the media (especially the conservative media) doesn't go for the radical, liberal feminism as much; but it does unequivocally project the 'strong woman' image and the 'Pedestal Syndrome' you've spoken of is encouraged by their commentators. Women like Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, and Ann Coulter are held up as role models. I have heard more than one conservative commentator over here saying that 'women are the civilizing force over men.' The conservative form of feminism is arguably more dangerous than it's liberal counterpart, because (like most right-wing movements) it is a counterfeit of what it seeks to combat.

John Pilger has something to say about the Murdochracy:http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10168

"Dominant themes in the Australian murdochracy, sport and celebrity gossip aside, are the promotion of war and jingoism, American foreign policy, Israel and a paternalism towards Aborigines, the world’s most impoverished indigenous people, according to the UN."

Greg Sheridan, author of The Partnership (referenced above) is also on his payroll.

"In keeping with their irrationalist ideology, it's perfectly logical that western women would select (in contrast to rationality) the weakest, least suitable men for mates."

You confuse rhetoric from academic feminism with the actions of the average woman on the street. Academic feminism is largely the realm of Lesbians. Their Misandry comes from the EXACT SAME REVULTION that the typical heterosexual male feels when being hit upon by gay men. The typical woman doesn't identify with "feminism" though she reaps the benefits of the anarchy such ideology enables. Thus the only guys who get in their pants are the "player" types in those slimy "clubs" girls go to to get attention from men on the dance floor. This isn't really what the Academic Lesbian Feminist had in mind, in their distopia the Amazonian Lesbians would rule with a weak class of sissyfied males to serve them and provide sperm, but they unleashed a monster they couldn't control just like Dr. Frankenstein.

"That was my first intimation that Anglo-Saxon countries stigmatize males as a sex."

The female was stigmatized as Anglo Saxons were forced to reject their indigenous spiritual traditions for Christianity's "father god" nonsense and now the male is being stigmatized as Atheism gains popularity.

So, first no goddess, now no god.

The solution to this mess lies in the indigenous South Asian classical Hindu traditions that embrace the Divine Feminine right along with Her consort the Divine Masculine.

phhhhfffff spits drink...Australia, there's one woman in parliament... are you seriously worried about the feminist influence of Australia? Here's evidence: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/WomanAustParls This blog is a lot of intuitive crap driven by an imaginary fear that women are taking over or something.